cctekguy
Staff member
Ok, so I'm the consummate cynic. A naysayer. A Half Empty kind of guy.
...but explain this to me.
Why is it so easy to imagine that a player with a good match up, in good health, with a good history will fall flat on his face yet choosing a player with a poor match up that's dinged up and a bad history will beat the odds?
This concept is difficult to communicate, so bear with me.
I'll use my own players to illustrate and hope that you can use yours to cross reference.
Carson Palmer: 2 great weeks under his belt. Sweet match up vs SF at home. All the pundits saying he's a must start....but then I get this feeling like it's too good to be true. Something is up...as though this is some sort of scripted deception designed to make ME look foolish and Las Vegas richer. If I had a reasonable replacement, I would start him. Heck, Palmer was a waiver wire add.
Lamar Miller: Lousy 2 weeks, horrible match up, 2 (count them, TWO) Philly RBs ranked higher and yet I can't imagine Miller having a great game against the odds. Miller was a top 15 RB in the draft.
Why can I see the bad in the good but can't see the good in the bad? Is it just human nature?
We all know that this week there will be a "must start" that falls flat and a "certain fail" that blows it up but why can I only get a sense of who the bad "must start" is and no clue who the good "certain fail" might be.
<sigh> I feel like I'm talking to a concrete wall.
I'll get replies as though I were asking whether I should start Palmer or Miller.
No, I'm talking about reading between the lines on these stupid projections and trying to figure how we are being manipulated into thinking.
I'm pretty certain Palmer will be a bust this week but I'll start him anyway because that's all I have.
I won't start Miller....and that's kind of my point. WHY? Cuz the "experts" tell me so?
Have you got guys you are squeamish about even though they are rated highly, or guys you are confident in even though they are poorly rated?
As my ex-wife once said "You over analyze everything"
...but explain this to me.
Why is it so easy to imagine that a player with a good match up, in good health, with a good history will fall flat on his face yet choosing a player with a poor match up that's dinged up and a bad history will beat the odds?
This concept is difficult to communicate, so bear with me.
I'll use my own players to illustrate and hope that you can use yours to cross reference.
Carson Palmer: 2 great weeks under his belt. Sweet match up vs SF at home. All the pundits saying he's a must start....but then I get this feeling like it's too good to be true. Something is up...as though this is some sort of scripted deception designed to make ME look foolish and Las Vegas richer. If I had a reasonable replacement, I would start him. Heck, Palmer was a waiver wire add.
Lamar Miller: Lousy 2 weeks, horrible match up, 2 (count them, TWO) Philly RBs ranked higher and yet I can't imagine Miller having a great game against the odds. Miller was a top 15 RB in the draft.
Why can I see the bad in the good but can't see the good in the bad? Is it just human nature?
We all know that this week there will be a "must start" that falls flat and a "certain fail" that blows it up but why can I only get a sense of who the bad "must start" is and no clue who the good "certain fail" might be.
<sigh> I feel like I'm talking to a concrete wall.
I'll get replies as though I were asking whether I should start Palmer or Miller.
No, I'm talking about reading between the lines on these stupid projections and trying to figure how we are being manipulated into thinking.
I'm pretty certain Palmer will be a bust this week but I'll start him anyway because that's all I have.
I won't start Miller....and that's kind of my point. WHY? Cuz the "experts" tell me so?
Have you got guys you are squeamish about even though they are rated highly, or guys you are confident in even though they are poorly rated?
As my ex-wife once said "You over analyze everything"
